Notice how teams like the Cleveland Indians have pretty much gone away from the cartoon "Indian" chief wahoo or whatever the F they called it. They even took it off the scoreboard and it's gone from all their unis now. Washington is so unresistant to change and Snyder is such an asshat that they're taking the brunt of it.

Editor's note: Simon Moya-Smith is a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and a writer living in New York. He has a master's degree from the Columbia University School of Journalism. He tweets @Simonmoyasmith.

(CNN) -- Native Americans have been news in mainstream media recently, which is a rare occurrence.

On Wednesday, the U.S. patent office canceled trademark registrations of the Washington Redskins team name, calling the word "disparaging to Native Americans."

Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo, was one of five plaintiffs to contest the federal trademark protection of the team name. This is a great victory for Native Americans and it's indicative of the growing chorus of people who oppose the use of such racial slurs.

Last week, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation of California purchased airtime during the NBA Finals to run the anti-Washington Redskins video, "Proud To Be."

The ad, produced by the National Congress of American Indians, ran in seven major cities and aimed to visually illustrate who Native Americans are and who we are not.

Days after the ad aired during prime time, President Barack Obama became only the fourth sitting president to visit an American Indian reservation.

Meeting in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, the president and first lady addressed a diverse group of Native Americans: those dressed in traditional regalia (not costumes) and those in suits and ties and dresses and modern attire. They met with decorated veterans of wars past and present, and children with iPhones and iPads.

These events are significant because Native American voices are often marginalized, ignored or simply left out of the American conversation.

But the 21st century is a time when we are getting mainstream attention. We are reclaiming our voice and images.

Now, we are using platforms like social media to speak out against consistent appropriation of Native culture or to collectively oppose offensive Native American imagery.

Recently, when "Happy" singer Pharrell Williams wore a Native American headdress on the cover of UK Elle magazine, a #nothappy twitter campaign was launched. Pharrell quickly issued an apology.

It was not the first time the use of a misappropriated headdress prompted a public mea culpa. In 2012, Victoria's Secret also issued an apology and removed a model wearing a headdress from its broadcast.

Now, more than ever, Native Americans are visible in ways they have not been in the past, erasing the antiquated image of a mythical, loin-cloth-clad Tonto figure and giving voice to real American Indians.

Native Americans are typically lumped into one large group due to the social construct of race and for ease.

But Native American nations are diverse, and recent visibility in the news offers a chance to see a wider range of who we are.

We are not "savages." We are not "injuns," and we are not "redskins."

We are the first people of this nation -- our old country -- and we have endured.

We are still here.

We have always been here, and there is better chance you will see us and hear us.

Not all Native American nations operate casinos. We do not all get free tuition. We don't get free gasoline, as Justin Bieber has suggested, and we do not all get monthly checks from Uncle Sam.

Due to a complex history and interconnected issues, many tribes face poverty unlike other American ethnic groups and have the highest dropout rates. And sadly, there are additional reprehensible social statistics.

But efforts like those the president outlined in his recent visit -- additional investment in tribal communities, improved communication between agencies and empowerment -- highlight some of the ways that the government is aiding these deeply rooted issues.

And as Native Americans are seen beyond the stereotypes, and as we use our voices to speak out, we give visibility to who we are, as well as the issues we are working to solve.

This visibility allows for a rehumanization. That is important, and not just for the sake of a brand name of a professional football team.

It is also not about an overly sensitive, politically correct Native American adult who feels the sting of racial epithets.

It's about a future where our kids won't have to face the racism we have.

Our voices were once silenced, but we never stopped speaking.

Our land was taken, but we never stopped living.

Our children were stolen, and yet generations endure.

The 21st century is incontrovertibly a time where we have reclaimed our voice from those who would speak on behalf of us, and it is a time where we work diligently to reclaim our appropriated image.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Simon Moya-Smith

I think it is hilarious that people get their panties in a bunch over a team name.

I think it's hilarious how white people think it's up to them to determine what words people who've faced discrimination and genocide ought to get upset about.

Oh, wait, that's not hilarious. It's really quite depressing.

I think it's funny as hell that people think naming a team fighting whities or crackers would offend most white people.

Offending white people isn't an issue. The issue here is that a team is named something that is a derogatory racial term. As Blue said, it's the same as if a team was named the niggers, or kikes, or any other racial term. It's not ok. I use this as a guide: if one is not comfortable referring to someone (to their face) as any given term (redskin, nigger, kike, chink, etc.) then it shouldn't be a team name. Simple as that. And if anyone says they are comfortable calling others those terms, I'd encourage you to try it out in public and see what reaction you get. If people react negatively to you, perhaps it's time to realize you're out of step with society and it's time to change your thinking (I'm not addressing this to anyone specifically, just saying in general). For example: there are still lots of people who think interracial marriages are wrong, refer to ethnic groups by derogatory names, etc. But, society in general frowns on that kind of thinking and people who speak and act in those ways are largely shunned. Times change, and things that used to be accepted are no longer deemed acceptable by society in general (and vice versa). If you find yourself on the outside of those societal changes, you are probably clinging to archaic ways of thinking and you have a choice: either change with the times or be left behind.

That said, I do think a name such as Chiefs is ok, as it is not derogatory and (I think) is more celebratory. Similarly, a team name like the FSU Seminoles is ok because that area actually has Seminoles living there (or did) so it's relevant and isn't a derogatory term. I could be wrong about that though, but that's my understanding at this time.

Redskins, on the other hand, is purely a derogatory term. While it may have been used in a more positive sense a long time ago, it no longer is. I'd argue the the historic connotation of a word is irrelevant anyway. As Charles Krauthammer put it: "Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. [...] The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone." Or think about a swastika. It was originally a religious symbol with positive meanings, and even today in Buddhist and Chinese cultures, it carries a positive meaning. But in Western worlds, it's entirely negative. Same thing with team names. If a team is named something that was previously neutral or even positive but has changed to have a negative meaning today, then teams need to change as well.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by Touchdown Jesus on June 20th, 2014, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

June 20th, 2014, 8:22 am

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

I think the "would you call someone that in public?" test is a good measure.

The Skins should either change their logo to a potato, or change their name to a particular tribe native to the area, or a cool sounding word from a particular native language.

June 20th, 2014, 2:16 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9898Location: Dallas

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

Blueskies wrote:

I think the "would you call someone that in public?" test is a good measure.

The Skins should either change their logo to a potato, or change their name to a particular tribe native to the area, or a cool sounding word from a particular native language.

I think Dan Schnieder should turn the tables on them. He should name the team a racial slur. Call them the Washington Fighting Whities. I bet they would become the most popular team in the NFL. Jersey sales would go through the roof. Who wouldn't want an RG3 Fighting Whities Jersey? LOL.

June 20th, 2014, 4:08 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

Re: Redskins name change: DC council member proposes team ch

BillySims wrote:

I think Dan Schnieder should turn the tables on them. He should name the team a racial slur. Call them the Washington Fighting Whities. I bet they would become the most popular team in the NFL. Jersey sales would go through the roof. Who wouldn't want an RG3 Fighting Whities Jersey? LOL.

Its Dan Snyder and his team's name is already a slur, why would he change it to a different one?

UsageRedskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.).

NFL may throw flag on N-word, but what about the 'R-word'?By Simon Moya-Smithupdated 2:39 PM EST, Wed February 26, 2014

Editor's note: Simon Moya-Smith is a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and a writer living in New York City. He has a master's from the Columbia University School of Journalism. You can follow him on Twitter @Simonmoyasmith.

(CNN) -- This week, the elite owners of the National Football League are considering instituting a 15-yard penalty for any NFL player caught using the N-word on the field.

Noble gesture? Sure. Clueless? Absolutely.

Why is it bad to demean a player of African descent, but the pejorative "Redskins" is still just fine for use as the name of the Washington football team? Makes no sense.

As a Native American, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation and someone who participates in the Native American community and doesn't just claim to be Native American because I have a picture somewhere of a great-grandma who had high cheekbones, I wonder: Hey NFL, why aren't you just as pissed about the R-word?

I'm not black, and although I find the N-word repugnant and wrong, I'm not here to rage about it. I'm here, in fact, to make a point.

Throughout the last NFL season, Native Americans diligently and consistently worked to remind the conscientious objector (not the bigot -- you can't get much into the brain of a bigot) that Redskin is a racial slur. And we, the descendants of those who survived the Founding Fathers and westward expansion and Christian boarding schools, will not sit idly by as opulent white men tell us that the R-word isn't an epithet and that it's part of their tradition.

In fact, this was the case last week on the D train here in New York City when, in a moment, I had enough of it all and encountered a tall black man with headphones on his ears and a Redskins lid on his skull.

He was standing, and I was standing. We faced each other, backs to the sliding doors, and I remember staring and glaring at his hat, then at his eyes, then up again to his cap. It wasn't long, maybe just one stop, before he ripped his headphones off and asked me if I had a problem.

"With your hat," I said. "So, yeah, I do."

He paused for a quick second and seemed a bit perplexed by my response. He probably thought I was a mad fan of a different team -- the kind of person who fights in stadium parking lots with beer in his gut and hate in his heart for any insolent denizen who dares don the logo of the visiting team.

"What a privilege," I continued, "to be able to walk into a subway and not have to see someone wearing a hat with the stereotypical likeness of your people on it and a racist pejorative to accompany the image."

Opinion: Redskins needs to change

And it gets better. I was on a Canadian radio show recently discussing the utter vulgarity of the R-word when a caller said to me, "You know, it's so trivial. It's just a word. ..."

"But isn't 'colored' just a word, too?" I barked. "Would you be so audacious as to make the same argument to an African-American about that word?" I waited for a loathsome rebuttal, but I all I got in return was dead Canadian air.

So, if you're still curious "what makes the red man red?" (Thanks again, Disney's "Peter Pan"), all you have to do is go to New York City and see the bevy of Christopher Columbus statues, and then go to Ohio and see the wiggy white men painted in red-face at the Cleveland Indians game and then end up back in Landover, Maryland, where the white and black and brown Washington Redskins taunt you, and then still ask: "What's the big deal?"

Here's the big deal. It's wrong.

I recently asked my Native elder in the West about what he thinks of the term. He said, "I'm not red ... I'm pissed." And so am I -- because if you're not pissed, you're not paying attention.

I think Dan Schnieder should turn the tables on them. He should name the team a racial slur. Call them the Washington Fighting Whities. I bet they would become the most popular team in the NFL. Jersey sales would go through the roof. Who wouldn't want an RG3 Fighting Whities Jersey? LOL.

I think Dan Schnieder should turn the tables on them. He should name the team a racial slur. Call them the Washington Fighting Whities. I bet they would become the most popular team in the NFL. Jersey sales would go through the roof. Who wouldn't want an RG3 Fighting Whities Jersey? LOL.